Allahabad High Court Acquits Man After Finding FIR, Motive and Weapon Recovery Insufficient for Conviction

A bench of Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Devendra Singh‑I heard an appeal challenging a conviction under Section 302 IPC and life sentence arising out of Sessions Trial No. 65 of 1983, State v. Radha Charan Sharma. The appeal concerned whether the trial court rightly convicted the accused on the basis of a written report lodged by him, purported motive letters of the deceased, recovery of a blood‑stained farsa and the application of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act.

The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitting the appellant and directing his release subject to compliance with Section 437‑A Cr.P.C. The High Court found that the trial court had relied on evidence that did not satisfy the legal standards for conviction, particularly in cases based on circumstantial evidence, and had incorrectly treated the first information report lodged by the accused as admissible incriminatory material. The judges emphasised the settled principles governing circumstantial cases and the limited admissibility of confessional or confessional‑type statements to police. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “To put the aforesaid in simpler terms, an FIR of a confessional nature made by an accused person is inadmissible in evidence against him, except to the extent that it shows he made a statement soon after the offence, thereby identifying him as the maker of the report, which is admissible as evidence of his conduct under Section 8 of the Act of 1872. Additionally, any information furnished by him that leads to the discovery of a fact is admissible under Section 27 of the Act of 1872. However, a non‑confessional FIR is admissible against the accused as an admission under Section 21 of the Act of 1872 and is relevant.”

Background
The appellant had been convicted by the Sessions Judge, Mathura, for the murder of his wife and sentenced to life imprisonment. The prosecution case began with a written report lodged by the accused at Police Station Raya on 02.02.1983 in which he stated that, in a fit of anger after a quarrel, he struck his wife with a farsa causing instantaneous death. Investigation recorded recovery of a blood‑stained farsa from the appellant’s kotha, an inquest and post‑mortem that recorded multiple incised and bone‑cutting injuries and opined death due to coma from ante‑mortem injuries. The trial court relied on three letters said to be by the deceased indicating matrimonial discord, the accused’s written report, the pointing‑out recovery of the farsa and the accused’s failure to explain circumstances under Section 106 to convict.

On appeal, the High Court accepted submissions by the Amicus Curiae for the appellant that the conviction rested on surmise and misapplication of law. The Court reiterated the five golden principles for circumstantial evidence from Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra and relied on precedents including Faddi, Aghnoo Nagesia and recent decisions cited in the judgment to hold that a confessional first information report was not admissible as incriminating evidence against the maker and that motive letters establishing unhappiness did not establish the necessary chain of conclusive circumstances. The High Court noted the trial court itself had recorded that the letters could only show the accused “could” be the person who committed the murder, and held suspicion could not substitute proof beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court further found the recovery memo and witnesses of recovery to be unreliable: both panch witnesses gave inconsistent testimony and later affidavits were produced denying recovery in their presence; gaps existed in custody and safe keeping of the weapon before FSL testing; and the precise place and manner of recovery was not satisfactorily established to attract Section 27. The High Court also held that Section 106 could not be invoked because the prosecution failed to prove foundational facts showing the accused was at or about his residence at the relevant time. In view of these infirmities the Court concluded the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and allowed the appeal, quashing the conviction and directing the appellant’s release if not wanted in other cases.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 235 of 1984
Case Title: Radha Charan Sharma V. State of U.P.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Vishesh Kumar (Amicus Curiae)
For the Respondent(s): A.G.A.